R:\Storage\AE\Chapman, Ronald (C)\Order denying motion to ...

(unpublished) (upholding ban on felons in possession); United States v. McRobie, 2009 WL 82715at *1 (4th Cir. Jan. 14, 2009) (unpublished) (upholding ban on mentally ill possessing firearms).Challenges to other statutes have proven more complicated. In this case, the defendant challengesthe constitutionality of § 922(g)(8) post-Heller.Several other courts have reviewed § 922(g)(8) in the time since Heller was decided; everyone of them has found the statute to pass constitutional muster. See United States v. Knight, 574F.Supp. 2d 224, 226-27 (D. Me. 2008); United States v. Luedtke, 589 F.Supp.2d 1018, 1023 (E.D.Wisc. 2008); United States v. Erwin, 2008 WL 4534058, at *3 (N.D. N.Y. Oct. 6, 2008); UnitedStates v. Grote, 2009 WL 853974, at *7 (E.D. Wash. Mar. 26, 2009); United States v. Montalvo,2009 WL 667229 at *4 (W.D. N.Y. Mar. 12, 2009). This Court has recognized the need to reviewcarefully the challenges to provisions of § 922(g), and has recently rejected an approach whichassess constitutionality by similarity to the list of presumptively reasonable restrictions in Heller.See United States v. Tooley, No. 3:09-cv-194, slip op. (S.D. W.Va. June 14, 2010). It has alsodetermined that intermediate scrutiny is appropriate, and historically justified, when a firearmrestriction is placed upon one who has committed a crime or might otherwise reasonably beperceived to be a danger. Id. Such a person is not within the “core” of the Second Amendmentright, as defined by Heller – “the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in the defenseof hearth and home.” Id. (citing Heller, 128 S.Ct. at 2818, 2821).The defendant in this case was not adjudicated guilty of a criminal offense which wouldrestrict his right to firearm possession. He was, however, determined by a judicial officer likely tohave committed domestic abuse. Additionally, he was found to be a likely threat of violence or-13-